Collectors, Collections,
and Scholarly Culture
The session on "Collectors, Collections, and Scholarly Culture"
was presented on May 6, 2000, in Washington, DC as part of the ACLS Annual Meeting.
© Anthony Grafton
Rare Book Collections in the
Age of the Library Without Walls
Anthony Grafton
Dodge Professor of History,
Princeton University
I would like to begin with a text. The passage that follows
comes from In Plato's Cave, the autobiography of Alvin Kernan. It
describes his experiences as a scholar in Princeton during the late 1970s
and 1980s:
More and more, like many older scholars, I stayed
in my study in the library, surrounded by millions
of books in the stacks and by the isolation of the
place where faculty and students working at home
on their word processors came less and less. What
a pleasure to walk from floor to floor of
Firestone, seeing only a librarian here or there or another of
the library rats like myself . . . The books printed
since about 1875 on acid paper may have been
disintegrating, the backs falling off volumes that had
been glued together rather than sewn, the pages
scribbled on and highlighted by students writing papers.
But it was a great research library with
eighteenth-century books and first editions of the American
and British novels. When I needed Johnson's
Dictionary (second printing) or the eighteenth-century
Journal of the House of Commons, they were there,
their weathered covers shabby and dried, but the
rag paper, the ink and the printing perfect still.
This vivid passage is cast in an elegiac tone. Professor
Kernan speaks of the world of print culture as one which is
passingwhich may already have passed into history. In his view, the great
treasure houses of booksthe Library of Congress, the major
university libraries, the Huntington, the Newberry, the Morgan, the
Folgerhave become ghost ships, magnificently built and equipped,
brightly illuminated, but sailing with skeleton crews and few if any
passengers, to destinations impossible to predict. Kernan sees this
condition as both tragic and unavoidable. It has come about because
of forces too large to resist or alter: the entry of new groups into
the university as students and teachers, the rise of new methods in
the humanities, and the development of new working
instrumentsabove all, the personal computer.
Professor Kernan's elegy leaves me worried. Like anyone
who spends his or her working days in America's great libraries, I
know that much of what he says rings true. Twenty-five years ago,
when I arrived at Princeton, the cramped metal carrels that line the
library's stacks formed the cells in a vast, industrious hive. In September
and October, carrel lights went on as seniors burrowed into the library
to research and write their theses and graduate students prepared
for general examinations. Only in June did the bulbs finally go
out. Nowadays, the once-bright windows of these steel boxes,
behind each of which two or more students pounded away on their
portable typewriters, generally remain dark. Students do their
writingand, increasingly, their researchon computers.
Skills in using books have declined. Princeton's chief
librarian recently met a graduate who had received her degree, in a
literary field, with highest honors. This student never realized, in four
years at Princeton, that the library had two electronic catalogues: one
for books and journals published before 1980 and the other for
those published after. The second catalogue had sufficed to meet her
needs. Even while working in the stacks, she had not noticed that it did
not list the bulk of the library's printed holdings. Stories like this
could be multipliednot to denounce our students, most of whom
are very bright and work very hard, but to confirm the sense that
our great vessels may be heading into fields of icebergs.
As a historian, however, I find myself less worried than
provoked by Professor Kernan's visionprovoked to take a look into the
past. To think about the situation of the great American collections
now, I would begin by thinking about that of the Vatican Library in
the age of its foundation, the fifteenth century, and after. If you visit
the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana nowadays, it seems a
straightforward, ongoing scholarly concern, populated by an erudite staff
and visitors from around the worlda busy, polyglot place,
always humming with activity, and very much part both of the larger
world of Vatican City and the still larger community of
international scholarship.
The library's origins were very different. It was created by
Pope Nicholas V, in the middle of the fifteenth century, as part of a
larger effort to restore the cultural luster of the papacy and the
economic health of the city. Rome, which had once had a million or
more inhabitants, had become a wasteland, torn by feuding barons.
Sheep grazed on the Forum, as they would until the twentieth century.
The papacy had little prestige; it was merely one among several
warring Italian powers. Nicholas' predecessor, Eugenius IV, had
actually been chased out of the city by a mob not long before.
Facing these immense practical difficulties, Nicholas built
fortifications, restored churches, and created what he envisioned as
the greatest library of his time, which he hoped would be used by
"the entire papal curia." The pope's motives were mixed. Like the
robber barons of late nineteenth-century America, Renaissance
princes collected books and commissioned works of art in the hope
of gaining cultural prestige. Nicholas looked back to the
Ptolemiesthe founders of the ancient Alexandrian libraryas his models.
Like them, he and later popes collected manuscripts and printed books
in the gentle spirit in which Vince Lombardi managed the Green
Bay Packers. The Ptolemies confiscated books from the ships in
the harbor at Alexandria. Similarly, Pope Leo X, having borrowed
a unique manuscript of Tacitus from the monks at Corvey, sent
them not the original but a copy of the printed edition of it he
had sponsored, along with a papal indulgenceand kept the
manuscript itself in Rome, where it remains. During the Thirty Years' War,
even more brutal tactics brought the great library of the Protestant Electors of the Palatinate to what is still its home in the Vatican.
The Vatican Library was meant, from the start, as a treasure-house:
that explains why two of its original four rooms, the ancestors of
all modern special collections, were closed to the public.
But ancient books could also serve very practical purposes:
they provided important information on many technical areas,
from astronomy to architecture. Nicholas, who hoped to see Rome
rise again as a new urban paradise, a splendid setting for papal
ceremonies and a fortress against the enemies of the church, envisioned his
library as part of his arsenalthe place where the scholars who worked
for him could consult the great ancient manual of architecture
by Vitruvius and many other complementary texts. One of the
first scholars to work systematically in the library was Leon
Battista Alberti, the humanist and builder who advised Nicholas on
architectural and urban questions. He did substantial research in the
Vatican as he compiled his own treatise On the Art of
Buildingthe first modern work to compete with Vitruvius. The carefully
guarded treasure house, in other words, was also a site of serious and
directed intellectual work.
The library's open rooms also had a third function: they
provided a space where Roman and foreign scholars, dignitaries and
intellectuals could find common intellectual groundwhere they
could meet, not only to examine books, but also to discuss them.
The library was one of the centers of good talk in all of Italy, the land
par excellence of civil conversation. Cultivated tourists like Michel
de Montaigne could enjoy a morning's book chat as they saw
rare manuscripts. And more erudite foreignerssome of them
known to be Protestantsdiscussed corrupt texts and historical
problems, collated manuscripts, and examined inscriptions in constant
dialogue with local experts.
Though the Library functioned at a high level for almost
two centuries, as a repository of the rare and wonderful, an arsenal
of powerful knowledge, and a meeting-place for the learned, it
gradually fell into decline. Great families like the Barberini collected
more zealously and effectively than most seventeenth-century popes.
New forms of intellectual inquiry, based more in the museum and
the botanical garden than in the library, challenged traditional humanistic scholarship. Hip visitors to mid-seventeenth-century
Rome, even the most learned of them, took as much interest in
Athanasius Kircher's Museum in the Collegio Romano and in the
city's magnificent new public spaces as they did in the Vatican Library,
or more. In an age of religious war, finally, the old policy of
relative openness made way for suspicion, short hours and closed doors.
The Library became a backwater, not to revive until it could serve
the needs of a new scholarship and a new intellectual community in
the later nineteenth century. A great collection, one designed to
serve many different purposes, the Vatican still passed from conception
to old age in less than two hundred years. And for almost two
hundred more its treasures slept, largely undisturbedand largely
unused. Nicholas' dream all too soon became a nightmare.
Like the Vatican, the great American libraries were created to
serve diverse purposesin some ways, not dissimilar to those the
original Vatican Library served. They offered cultural prestige to
baronial families like the Morgans, who not only created great libraries
of their own but also assembled what became the core collections of
the major public and university libraries (J.P. Morgan's nephew
Junius actually worked as a librarian at Princeton, and left it his own
superb collection of manuscripts and rare editions of Virgil). They made
it possible for scholars to carry out new forms of intellectual work,
like the philological and historical brands of literary study that
dominated in most English and Classics departments from the arrival
of the new German methods on these shores in the late
nineteenth century until the middle decades of the twentieth. And they
provided a space, if not for civil conversation in the old sense, at least
for intellectual sociability of a sort. Princeton's Firestone Library,
for example, was designed by the great librarian and Jefferson
scholar Julian Boyd to civilize the students who used it. He firmly
believed that if students worked every day and met their teachers in the
library, in front of thousands of colorful bindings, they would be
somehow softened and humanized by the influence of the books. The
same nobleif implausibleplan underlay the creation and
decoration of splendid reading rooms in Cambridge, New Haven, Chicago
and Berkeley.
Firestone was created half a century ago, Sterling, Butler
and Widener some decades before that. All of them embody the
same three purposes: intellectual prestige, the facilitation of certain
styles of scholarship, and civil conversation. And all of them have
become antiquated, at least to some extent. Few students arrive at
universities from houses in which oak shelves bend under heavy quartos.
The drive to collect books, though it still infects a few students,
may never again reach the epidemic proportions of the 1920s. And
even the richest libraries may never again mean what libraries did in
earlier ages of glamorous collectors and dealers. Intellectual work has
also changed. Social scientists often make little or no use of books:
they find their data over computer networks, and read the most
exciting new work in pre-print form, or appended to e-mails. Even
humanists make far fewer appearances in rare book rooms than they did
in the heyday of great editorial projects and the history of
ideaspartly because they can read many of the same texts in a variety of
electronic forms without ever leaving their offices.
Sociability, too, has changed. Computers bursting with
e-mail messages have, in many universities, replaced personal visits
and office hours. Faculty are, notoriously, pulled away from their
home campusesby the opportunity to spend leaves elsewhere, by
the need to carry out professional tasks on boards, by their
engagement with disciplinary colleagues around the world. Students, too,
are increasingly pulled out of the library by the need to interview
for fellowships, jobs, and internshipsoften at exactly the time,
their third and fourth undergraduate years, when they would once
have become most deeply engaged in library work. No wonder, then,
that so many one-time beehives now look deserted and barren. One
can see why some fear that the great American libraries have run
their course, even more quickly than the great Roman one.
But new needs brought the Vatican back to life. And new uses
may also bring the great libraries back. The challenge scholars
and librarians now face is to identify the new needs and devise the
new uses of the next century. And some successes at this task are
already clear. As the information landscape students must negotiate
becomes more complex, librarians at many centers have established that
they, and they alone, can offer systematic guidance and instruction. Only they know both traditional and cutting-edge research
techniques; only they can show how the two forms of work complement
and strengthen one another. Fast computers and accessible
counselors have brought many bodies back, if not into the stacks, at least
into the reading rooms.
In the world of rare books and manuscripts, one relatively
new field of scholarship shows special promise. The history of books
and readersan interdisciplinary study, pioneered by historians
like Robert Darnton and Roger Chartier, bibliographers like
Donald McKenzie and editors like Jerome McGannseeks to work
out how individual texts were produced and consumed, in
particular times and places, by particular individuals. Students from
many different disciplines find this new perspective both helpful
and appealing. And the only way to teach it is, quite simply, to
make students sit and examine the primary sourcesliterary
manuscripts, books with manuscript annotations, and many othersin, so
to speak, the flesh.
The experience of examining such documentsnot as
treasures only, but as historical sources and literary
provocationsproves impressively infectious. In my own undergraduate and
graduate courses, students who started with no prior knowledge have
spent weeks examining early typography, grinding through
eighteenth-century French pornographic novels, transcribing Mrs.
Thrale's notes in her copy of the Tatlerand ultimately produced results
that went beyond anything in the secondary literature. This form
of teachingespecially when carried out in seminar form, within
a department of special collectionsgives students access to
magnificent objects. It introduces them to forms of intellectual work
that appeal to a generation more deeply conscious than any previous
one of the modes of marketing and reception. It even offers a new
kind of learned sociability.
In time, this and other new forms of scholarship,
intelligently reconfigured for teaching, can induce students back to sail in
our great literary vessels. They may not come in the same numbers as
a generation or two ago, and they will not use the library in the
same ways. But if we build new structures and make them attractive,
they will ultimately come. The lights no longer go on in the old carrels.
But they still shine in the eyes of a bright student who is shown
for the first time to learn, from crabbed notes in an
eighteenth-century handwriting, how differently our ancestors read texts, and
wrote them.
The history of books is only one of several new fields largely
based in departments of special collections, all of which can provide
their own characteristic ways to introduce students to the
treasures libraries hold, and to show them how to interpret these in
wider contexts. There is no reason to be overconfident about the future
of our collections. But there is also no reason to despair. The ghost
ships will attract new crewsif we who steer them now equip them,
rig them and sail them as imaginatively and as richly as we should,
and as they deserve. If we show imagination, passion and skill, our
great special collections can revive as quickly as they have declined.